[PGT] Seattle Kraken at Vancouver Canucks | Apr. 26, 2022

[StanleyCupOneDay]

2 minutes ago, J-P said:

You did watch the game right? Sure there were soft calls, but in no way more biased against us. It was just one of those games where we had a few extra accidental tripping calls etc. Even BB said so after the game (i.e. that all Canucks penalites were warranted).

Yes I did. The tripping calls were 100% deserved and either more calls should have been made against the Canucks after the Miller penalty making it 4 on 4 (they had many more after that that went uncalled) or the soft calls shouldn’t have ever been made. It’s about consistency I’m talking about, not the outcome or number of penalties.

[J-P]

2 minutes ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:

Yes I did. The tripping calls were 100% deserved and either more calls should have been made against the Canucks after the Miller penalty making it 4 on 4 (they had many more after that that went uncalled) or the soft calls shouldn’t have ever been made. It’s about consistency I’m talking about, not the outcome or number of penalties.

Yeah, ok, fair enough, I can see your point regarding consistency and also there's definitely a tendency to manage the games by evening the penalties out in most games.

 

In this game however, I just don't buy that we got more penalties before we were eliminated vs after. We deserved to get way more penalties vs Kraken the first 30 mins and the last 30 mins we did not, simple as that.

[StanleyCupOneDay]

10 minutes ago, J-P said:

Yeah, ok, fair enough, I can see your point regarding consistency and also there's definitely a tendency to manage the games by evening the penalties out in most games.

 

In this game however, I just don't buy that we got more penalties before we were eliminated vs after. We deserved to get way more penalties vs Kraken the first 30 mins and the last 30 mins we did not, simple as that.

I appreciate your understanding my point I was making. As far as this game goes it feels like we watched 2 different games. I’ve got the game recorded so I can easily rewind, go back and watch plays, so maybe I have an added benefit then others do because of it. What I saw in the 2nd half was no different then the first. Vancouver never changed how they played in this game. I’m not arguing Canucks should have had more power plays. The Kraken deserved to have more power plays then we did, by a large margin too, 100%, no argument from me on that. They still made those trips, hooks and interference plays, but stopped being called for it and that’s where my criticism comes in. The consistency of the refs.

Edited April 27, 2022 by StanleyCupOneDay

[J-P]

3 minutes ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:

I appreciate your understanding my point I was making. As far as this game goes it feels like we watched 2 different games. I’ve got the game recorded so I can easily rewind, go back and watch plays, so maybe I have an added benefit then others do because of it. What I saw in the 2nd half was no different then the first. Vancouver never changed how they played in this game. I’m not arguing Canucks should have had more power plays. The Kraken deserved to have more power plays then we did, by a large margin too, 100%, no argument from me on that. They still made those trips, hooks and interference plays, but stopped being called for it and that’s where my criticism comes in.

I can meet you halfway now that you explained it in more detail. I agree that during the second half of the game, yes we probably should have gotten a few more penalties vs Kraken. Still a huge difference vs the first half when there were a number of must make calls (trippings etc).

 

Refs usually keep it even and more loose in the later parts of the game though (game went from 3-0 to 3-2), so still not buying the conspiracy theory.

[StanleyCupOneDay]

25 minutes ago, J-P said:

I can meet you halfway now that you explained it in more detail. I agree that during the second half of the game, yes we probably should have gotten a few more penalties vs Kraken. Still a huge difference vs the first half when there were a number of must make calls (trippings etc).

 

Refs usually keep it even and more loose in the later parts of the game though (game went from 3-0 to 3-2), so still not buying the conspiracy theory.

I think that’s as close as we’ll get then because I can’t agree that the timing and frequency of calls were normal or that it was average late game reffing. I don’t believe the rigging conspiracy. I do believe in this game specifically that it’s strangely coincidental the timing of when calls were made and when they weren’t. I guess we’ll just have to leave it there.

[Kragar]

59 minutes ago, J-P said:

You did watch the game right? Sure there were soft calls, but in no way more biased against us. It was just one of those games where we had a few extra accidental tripping calls etc. Even BB said so after the game (i.e. that all Canucks penalites were warranted).

Woulda been nice if they caught the high stick that led to Myers' retaliation cross check.  if that had happened, no 2nd 2-man advantage, and not unsportsmanlike for Miller after the goal.

 

But agreed, the calls overall weren't terrible, and I had no issue with the 2nd penalties that led the the 2-man advantages. Was a little surprised there wasn't more even up calls, but since the tide turned in the 3rd, it doesn't really matter.

[stawns]

59 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Do you consider Sutherland's conduct to be acceptable?  

what conduct?  What is it you think he's doing that is so unprofessional, exactly?

[King Heffy]

9 minutes ago, stawns said:

what conduct?  What is it you think he's doing that is so unprofessional, exactly?

The San Jose series, giving Daniel a misconduct for being punched, and giving Keith 2 minutes for his elbow on Daniel are the worst offences.  Pretty much every time he works one of our games, he causes a problem. There's no reason any of us should be giving that scumbag any benefit of the doubt.

[BarnBurner]

4 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

The San Jose series, giving Daniel a misconduct for being punched, and giving Keith 2 minutes for his elbow on Daniel are the worst offences.  Pretty much every time he works one of our games, he causes a problem. There's no reason any of us should be giving that scumbag any benefit of the doubt.

Let's not forget about the Rat in 2011. 

[stawns]

6 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

The San Jose series, giving Daniel a misconduct for being punched, and giving Keith 2 minutes for his elbow on Daniel are the worst offences.  Pretty much every time he works one of our games, he causes a problem. There's no reason any of us should be giving that scumbag any benefit of the doubt.

I have no issue with you not liking him, but he certainly isn't crooked and he doesn't target the Canucks anymore than any other team.  If he does, he's not the first ref in the history of this league to be harder on one team than another........it's a time honored tradition in hockey.

[Frozen Water Walker]

17 hours ago, *Buzzsaw* said:

So here is what I am hoping for the rest of the season:

 

-  Miller hits 100 pts

-  Pettersson hits 70 pts

-  Hughes hits 70 pts

-  Garland hits 20 goals

-  Podz hits 15 goals and 30 pts

-  Martin wins the rest of his games

I'm with you there and would like to add: (3) 30 goal scorers (1) hard edged player turning into a superstar, top 10 in scoring in the NHL.

Your #1 goal tender getting 30 wins, the first time in how long? A star defenseman top 8 in points in the NHL

And if someone has time how many team records did this team break this season (just the good ones please )

GCG

[DrJockitch]

5 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

So Stamkos was never healthy for his previous 13 seasons?  This is the only year of his 14 year career that he was healthy?

 

You need to come up with something much better than that to justify a player having a career year at 32.

 

Maybe, just maybe, players in today's NHL are more fit and healthy than they ever were, which explains why so many players are having better years scoring wise in their 30's than in their 20's.  Joe Pavelski is another example of a guy turning 38 who is still a point a game player.

The point is really you picked a handful of examples where the reality is that for those few you show, there are hundreds on the decline at that age or already out of the league. There are a few that didn’t get it figured out until they hit 30 but that isn’t the bet I want to lay down either. 
It is possible that Miller could give us another 2-3 years of really high level play. He doesn’t have a game like Pavelski’s though, he could never skate so loosing a step isn’t a big deal. Miller plays a high risk game and when he looses a step, the offence will likely fade quickly. 
I am not trying to dig at Miller, I just don’t think a big long term contract is a great idea especially where I think this franchise is. I have said I would be happy to see him sign anywhere up to about 9M but not for more than 3-4 years at that rate.  A full 8 year big deal would be crazy unless the last 3 years are significantly lower to bring cap hit down. 

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

I have no issue with you not liking him, but he certainly isn't crooked and he doesn't target the Canucks anymore than any other team.  If he does, he's not the first ref in the history of this league to be harder on one team than another........it's a time honored tradition in hockey.

Neither of us have any proof one way or the other, so it's not possible to say he's certainly not crooked.   My view is that his misconduct has been so consistent that corruption is more likely than incompetence.  At the end of the day, there needs to be recourse against known problem officials who can't be trusted to work games involving certain teams.  The league even gave us Auger the season after Burrows called him out for his transgressions.

[stawns]

4 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

The point is really you picked a handful of examples where the reality is that for those few you show, there are hundreds on the decline at that age or already out of the league. There are a few that didn’t get it figured out until they hit 30 but that isn’t the bet I want to lay down either. 
It is possible that Miller could give us another 2-3 years of really high level play. He doesn’t have a game like Pavelski’s though, he could never skate so loosing a step isn’t a big deal. Miller plays a high risk game and when he looses a step, the offence will likely fade quickly. 
I am not trying to dig at Miller, I just don’t think a big long term contract is a great idea especially where I think this franchise is. I have said I would be happy to see him sign anywhere up to about 9M but not for more than 3-4 years at that rate.  A full 8 year big deal would be crazy unless the last 3 years are significantly lower to bring cap hit down. 

apparently people now think Miller is going to sign for around $7m a year over 8 years........so a lower cap hit than Petey

[Harvey Specter]

17 hours ago, Kerrsil said:

Does anyone know who the female country singer was tonight?  Asking for a friend... game was pretty good.

@Kerrsil

 

[DrJockitch]

31 minutes ago, stawns said:

apparently people now think Miller is going to sign for around $7m a year over 8 years........so a lower cap hit than Petey

Will be interesting certainly. There have been some surprise bargains since COVID but with what good (not great) D have been going for it seems that any COVID related fiscal restraint went out the window last season. 

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[-DLC-]

I SO wanted to be there to cheer the boys out tomorrow.  Sigh, sounds like there's a lot of fun stuff planned, too.

 

And JT's gonna hit 100 (years old according to some)...really wanted to be part of that in person.

 

 

[higgyfan]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

apparently people now think Miller is going to sign for around $7m a year over 8 years........so a lower cap hit than Petey

When you say 'people' do you mean 'people in the know', or Canuck fans?

[-Vintage Canuck-]